It was absolutely clear for scientists that vaccines don't cause autism.
Simply because the rise of autism in countries where no vaccines are given to children mimicks the rise of autism in countries where vaccines are given, when careful, standardised diagnoses are made.
The whole way Wakefield and his team conducted the research was not up to the quality (and quantity) standards of proper research.
And... which is as important... the results couldn't be replicated.
It was interesting to see over the years that in countries where medical opinions are by law the privilege of people who are qualified to make medical judgements, people didn't belief in a relationship between vaccines and autism.
And in countries where everyone can spread his or her opinion about everything without having to take responsibility rumours were soon labeled "the truth", and people who knew how to play the media were called "experts".
I bet many of those "experts" earned a nice amount of money with appearing on TV and selling stories and alternative therapies.
By the way they targetted me when I spoke out against a link between vaccines and autism from the first moment on after I saw Wakefield's research, I knew that a lot more than believing the wrong prophet was at stake.
The way that for instance Jenny McCarty waved even the undisputable statements of The Lancet away was a clear illustration of how people can stick to their wrong assumptions.
And it's a pity that people just follow her blindly, instead of questioning themselves why on earth they hand themselves and their opinions over to someone who is in confict with doctors and scientists all the time.
Persistence is an honorable characteristic, but knowing when to change your mind and opinion in the light of overpowering evidence is at least as honorable.
But maybe I'm just lucky to have seen the signs and signals of autism in my 4 boys way before their vaccinations.
And maybe I'm lucky to accept that we don't know everything, and that nature is a strong force and we know just only part of what it does and how it works.
Science began with simple questions: why does something happen, how does it happen?
And from these simple questions people struggled to create a system to draw conclusions and to describe how reliable they are.
They used a lot of common sense in that they wanted to be able to get the same results when the same methods to find them were used.
Every day experience taught that when something occured once it wasn't a guarantee it would happen again, and that when events occured in a certain order that didn't mean the first event caused the second.
So they tried to control events to see what happened.
Research isn't a backyard game for those who like to see what they want.
Research is subject to lots of rules and requirements which have emerged in a long process.
This guarantees carefullness and limits the amount of mistakes, but it also limits the rate of development.
And all the time scientists have to describe what they do, because others should be able to get the same results under the same conditions.
Science doesn't create make-belief, but it does describe and recreate reality in such a way that others will be able to get the same results and won't see what's not there.
I know there are parents who keep saying that vaccines caused autism in their child.
They subject their (other) children to preventable health risk by not vaccinating.
Their children will call them to responsibility later in life.
But why would they stick to drawing conclusions from two events that took place in the life of their children?
Is it to flee from the rotten feeling that maybe genetics plays a role and that we, moms, conceived without knowing we would cause autism in our children?
Is it to forget what we ate, because maybe a cause will be in our food?
Or is it to push away the chilling fear that we might have seen the signs and signals of autism in our children earlier, so our child would have has better support?
It's for all of us as individual persons to answer to the questions life poses.
One of the main questions is: do we have enough knowledge to draw certain conclusions and do we want to take responsibility for what we tell others?
And do we have the guts to change our minds when we need to?
At least and at last the Lancet took action.
It should have happened a lot earlier.
Showing posts with label news. Show all posts
Showing posts with label news. Show all posts
Michael Buckholtz is on day 29 of his hunger strike for autism.
Read all about it here and in this post.
Not for himself, but for families and individuals who need money to get a proper diagnosis and who have no access to treatment otherwise.
Girls and women, and people from the lower social-economic classes are underdiagnosed.
Girls with autism are often withdrawn or overcompensate their autism, children and adults with autism from the lower social-economic classes are often told they suffer from bad upbringing.
Because there's no proper diagnosis they don't receive treatment.
A lot needs to be done and your help is needed.
The public needs to be informed, not only about the characteristics of autism, but also about ways to find a proper diagnosis and treatment.
Your help is needed.
- To spread the word about this strike (see here for info and banners,) on your blog, on twitter and other social media
- To inform papers, radiostations, shows and TV-stations about the strike
- To motivate others to help
- To donate, even when it's one or a few dollars: here
- To buy his book. See here.
I know, it's awful to say, but most people don't care, because their children are healthy and do well at schools and everywhere else.
But many children are unhappy, because they're told every day they should behave better, but they can't.
Autism is a neuro-biological disorder that presents itself in all sorts of ways. In social behaviour, in communication, in understanding the world.
When we diagnose children early we can help them to understand the world better and find a place in it so they can be happy.
Help Michael reach the media so a larger audience will hear his appeal.
Please.
News:
He'll accompany John Elder Robison on some of his lectures in New York
RadioBlogRadio will feature Michael on june 17 on a special radio broadcast
Finally more people on twitter react.
Ever done this game:
People are all standing or sitting in a line.
Someone writes down a message and goes to the first person and whispers a message in his ear.
This message is whispered in the ear of the next person, etc etc.
At the end the message is collected and written down.
There's a large chance the message is transformed during the process.
That's what happens with scientific research.
A researcher finds data which are translated into a conclusion about the researched subject.
This conclusion is summarised, and there it goes: the media, all sorts of people, on and on it goes...
You'll understand what the result is. :)
One way scientists battle this problem is very simple:
Mention the source of the information and the place where to read the precise details of the research.
That way relevant information can be found within minutes.
My advice is to do that too when you write a blogpost, an article or anythings else.
Such a little effort for such a great result.
Take the message: "Autism can be cured" or "children can recover from autism."
This message refers to a research presentation at a conference by professor Deborah Fein of the University of Connecticut psychology.
I haven't found the exact text of her presentation, so I have to go by reports from those who attended the conference. (So that's seceond hand knowledge).
The results are from 20 children. (Far from being enough to draw acceptable conclusions.)
The study involved children from 9 to 18.
It's not clear whether the ages also involve the first diagnosis. But I have to assume not, because it was said children were diagnosed before age 5.
I have no access to the diagnostic criteria, which troubles drawing a conclusion.
And I have no idea which neuropsychological tests were used.
Some of those tests will be done better a second and third time, regardless of improvement of the autism.
Interesting is the description of the group of children that showed improvement:
Many have been diagnosed with relatively mild cases of autism, many also have above-average IQs. At age 2, many were within the normal range for motor development, able to walk, climb and hold a pencil.
Interesting is that it was told that in most cases improvement was already seen at age 7.
(Which suggests late onset development, instead of real autism. But again, I haven't seen her diagnostic criteria.)
75% of the children had other disorders, which raises the question whether these children had autism at the time of diagnosis, or displayed autistiform behaviour as a symptom of an underlying problem.
The children all received intensive therapy during the main part of the week.
In fact Fein published nothing new.
Former research conclusions reported 3 to 25% of improvement of autistic behaviour towards acceptable behaviour.
The results of Fein, 10 to 20%, is well within that range.
In fact the media could also have reported:
Less children are cured from autism.
Fein acknowledges that most children will remain autistic, despite lots of therapy and other ways of intervention. With other words 80 to 90% of the autistic children will have to battle autism all their lives.
That pretty opposes all those tweets, blogposts and articles telling me there's a cure for autism.
Ofcourse I want hope, but no false hope.
Do you know where I've found hope?
Here.
Maybe wanting to normalise autistic people is not curing them at all.
Today the autism twitter community was buzzing about the rise of autism cases in California.
It made clear no one bothered to read the article of Mercury News.com written by Sandy Kleffman.
OK, the title created the misunderstanding.
"Autism in California increases twelvefold" it said.
But why people retweet articles without reading them is a big question to me.
Why send your friends a text you haven't read yourself?
The first sentence states:
"California saw a twelvefold increase during the past two decades in the number of autistic people who are receiving services through regional centers, a new state study reveals."
This simply means that more people with autism have turned to the regional centers for support.
This doesn't mean that the number of autistic people has increased.
What bothers me in the article is the definition of autism.
"Autism is a severe developmental disorder marked by communication difficulties, an adherence to routines and a lack of interest in socializing with others."
Many autistic people, and we're talking classic autism here, don't have a lack of interest in socializing.
Because of their communication difficulties, they problems understanding social processes and the lack of acceptance they encounter, autistic people feel not well equipped to socialize.
Many do feel an inner longing to belong to their peergroup, to other groups, to have friends, but they sense a distance they can't bridge themselves without support.
It's one of the reasons autistic people seek help at support centres.
The deputy director of the community services and support division of the state Department of Developmental Services, Julia Muller, is cited in the article.
She states that her agency has developed guidelines on diagnosing autism and effective interventions.
What we need to be able to get comparable diagnoses is one clear system.
Not each division making up it's own rules.
The DSM IV, and preferably it's revision the DSM-IV-TR needs to be used to reach proper diagnoses.
These guidelines are developed by experts and are only open for discussion as long as the development of DSM 5 is concerned.
more info here.
Sometimes someone can be caught by such a strong inner urge that nothing, nothing can stop him.
When I met Michael Buckholtz at Twitter, I felt this is one someone special.
Oh yes, he is.
He was diagnosed with high-functioning Asperger's Syndrome and OCD and he battled all the battles children, adolescents and grown ups with that diagnosis are faced with.
Like in my family all males in his family had their own unique form of austism.
His perseverance and his positive attitude made him into a caring person, who fully understands the problems autistic people and their families are dealing with.
One of the main problems is finding enough care, support and therapy.
It simply costs too much money to do what's needed.
Michael founded the AACF, INc. The Aid for Autistic Children Foundation, Inc.
It's a non-profit organisation which aims to reduce the financial burden on families.
But he does more.
Today he started a hunger strike to bring the needs of autistic people to the attention of the media, the governments and to all who need to listen more.
Each day he will blog about his condition here at his blog.
There are several ways you can support him.
I don't think you can talk him out of the hunger strike, but you can report his efforts to your local media, because austism concerns us all.
You can blog about him, and about autism.
When you don't know what to blog about, just get in contact with Michael, with an autism family in your neighbourhood or online, or with me.
Buy Michaels book.
He knows what he's writing about.
You can find everything about it here.
Michael is at twitter: @TheBuchNation and @Aid4ASDKids
I wish Michael will reach his goals.
Let's all help him!!
Download this image to your computer and upload it to your site.
Link it to:
http://autismsupportnetwork.leveragesoftware.com/blog_view.aspx?CustomerID=buckholtz
Top one without white border:
...and
I can put your name on this 125x125 button for you.
Please mail me with the subjectline: custom button for me, with your name and email.
This button can be used in your sidebar, linking to one of the sites of Michael or here, and on entrecard, for instance.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
